The Interpreters of Genesis and the Interpreters of Nature | Page 4

between science and religion.
In the chapter on "The Primitive Revelation" the scientific worth of the
account of the Creation given in the book of Genesis is estimated in
terms which are as unquestionably respectful as, in my judgment, they
are just; and, at the end of the chapter on "Primitive Tradition," M.
Reville appraises the value of pentateuchal anthropology in a way
which I should have thought sure of enlisting the assent of all
competent judges, even if it were extended to the whole of the
cosmogony and biology of Genesis:--
As, however, the original traditions of nations sprang up in an
epoch less remote than our own from the primitive life, it is
indispensable to consult them, to compare them, and to associate them
with other sources of information which are available. From this point

of view, the traditions recorded in Genesis possess, in addition to their
own peculiar charm, a value of the highest order; but we cannot
ultimately see in them more than a venerable fragment, well-deserving
attention, of the great genesis of mankind.
Mr. Gladstone is of a different mind. He dissents from M. Reville's
views respecting the proper estimation of the pentateuchal traditions,
no less than he does from his interpretation of those Homeric myths
which have been the object of his own special study. In the latter case,
Mr. Gladstone tells M. Reville that he is wrong on his own authority, to
which, in such a matter, all will pay due respect: in the former, he
affirms himself to be "wholly destitute of that kind of knowledge which
carries authority," and his rebuke is administered in the name and by
the authority of natural science.
An air of magisterial gravity hangs about the following passage:--
But the question is not here of a lofty poem, or a skilfully
constructed narrative: it is whether natural science, in the patient
exercise of its high calling to examine facts, finds that the works of
God cry out against what we have fondly believed to be His word and
tell another tale; or whether, in this nineteenth century of Christian
progress, it substantially echoes back the majestic sound, which, before
it existed as a pursuit, went forth into all lands.
First, looking largely at the latter portion of the narrative, which
describes the creation of living organisms, and waiving details, on
some of which (as in v. 24) the Septuagint seems to vary from the
Hebrew, there is a grand fourfold division, set forth in an orderly
succession of times as follows: on the fifth day 1. The water-population;
2. The air-population; and, on the sixth day, 3. The land-population of
animals; 4. The land-population consummated in man. Now this same
fourfold order is understood to have been so affirmed in our time by
natural science, that it may be taken as a demonstrated conclusion and
established fact" (p. 696).
"Understood?" By whom? I cannot bring myself to imagine that Mr.
Gladstone has made so solemn and authoritative a statement on a

matter of this importance without due inquiry--without being able to
found himself upon recognised scientific authority. But I wish he had
thought fit to name the source from whence he has derived his
information, as, in that case, I could have dealt with [143] his authority,
and I should have thereby escaped the appearance of making an attack
on Mr. Gladstone himself, which is in every way distasteful to me.
For I can meet the statement in the last paragraph of the above citation
with nothing but a direct negative. If I know anything at all about the
results attained by the natural science of our time, it is "a demonstrated
conclusion and established fact" that the "fourfold order" given by Mr.
Gladstone is not that in which the evidence at our disposal tends to
show that the water, air, and land-populations of the globe have made
their appearance.
Perhaps I may be told that Mr. Gladstone does give his authority--that
he cites Cuvier, Sir John Herschel, and Dr. Whewell in support of his
case. If that has been Mr. Gladstone's intention in mentioning these
eminent names, I may remark that, on this particular question, the only
relevant authority is that of Cuvier. But great as Cuvier was, it is to be
remembered that, as Mr. Gladstone incidentally remarks, he cannot
now be called a recent authority. In fact, he has been dead more than
half a century; and the palaeontology of our day is related to that of his,
very much as the geography of the sixteenth century is related to that of
the fourteenth. Since 1832, when Cuvier died, not only a new world,
but new worlds, of ancient life have been discovered; and those who
have most faithfully